Bug#737493: RFS: iceowl-l10n/2.6.4-1 [NMU]
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jerome Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Le 2014-02-03 00:08, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
>> Have you tried contacting the current maintainer prior to sending
>> out this RFS? If they haven't responded in a timely manner, please
>> ping the MIA team and go through the MIA process; if they did reply
>> and simply don't have time to update their package, please get them
>> to say so on a public list / bug report and include a link to it in
>> your RFS bug. Otherwise, this would be considered a hostile NMU.
>
> As the maintainer is listed in LowThresholdNmu, I thought it would be
> okay to upload without delay. And I did leave a note in bug #693150
> announcing my intention and asking for feedback. Could the upload still
> be considered as such in light of this?
No, low threshold NMUs doesn't give an unconditional license to upload
new upstream releases and/or make 0-day uploads (it's also never been
formalized in Policy, so there aren't exactly any clear-cut rules as
to what low threshold NMUs do allow...).
Again, please try to get in contact with the maintainer, and if that
fails, get in touch with the MIA team to get this package orphaned so
you can adopt it and properly maintain it.
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: